02/09/2017

Top Marine Corps aviator wants F-35Bs faster than planned

WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps’ top aviator is hungry for more F-35Bs, telling reporters on Wednesday that he would like to see the service’s buy rate increase to 37 jets per year. That would almost double the planned rate of F-35B procurement over the next few years, which is projected to sit at 20 aircraft per year from fiscal years 2018 to 2021. "We have the infrastructure in place,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation. "Bottom line is we've had a very anemic ramp, so we've been holding onto the older airplanes longer. If asked by the American people to get the airplanes faster, I guarantee we'd put them into play very, very quickly. “We'd transition squadrons faster is what we'd do,” he said, adding that if the service were allowed to purchase 37 B-variants a year, it would be able to retire its legacy F/A-18 Hornet and Harrier planes by 2026.

Over on the book of faces, every time the F-35 makes the news, someone pops in to cry that the F-35 can’t do Close Air Support.

Which, frankly, strikes me as silly. The Marines literally invented CAS. I’ll share what I posted as a response to this balderdash yesterday.

How many times do we have to go around in this circle?

CAS is a mission, not a platform.

What makes CAS isn't how low and slow the airplane is, it's the proximity of friendly forces to the effects. The value of low and slow in the Vietnam era was that it improved the CAS pilot's ability to generate situational awareness (SA) of the location of both the friendlies and the intended target.

Amazingly, in the intervening half century, technology has evolved somewhat, and there are improved devices and procedures that allow the CAS pilot to generate that SA without having to stooge over the battlefield in range of small arms fire while leaning over and staring at the rocks.

Indeed, it was the fantastic performance of the F-15E Strike Eagle, and Sniper pod equipped F-16s that spurred the Air Force to integrate some of those same technologies into the A-10, and give it the ability to deliver modern PGMs, so that it would achieve something approaching the performance of the fast jets. Prior that, the "danger close" of the A-10 was much greater than other platforms.

Heck, the B-1B and the B-52 are both high demand CAS assets because of their large weapon hauling ability, their great ISR capability, and their endurance. And they aren't loitering at 2000 feet.

And the Marines, who invented CAS, and have a fetish for it like no one else, are happy with their F-35s, gun or no gun.

But if having a 30mm cannon is that important to you, let the Apaches come play.

-------End rant

I’ll add this, regarding an increased buy of F-35s in the next few years. You’ll end up paying more up front in total dollars, of course, but the single best way to drive down unit flyaway costs is to increase the rate of production. For instance, there’s certain costs that we’re paying for whether we buy 1, 10, or 100 aircraft a year, such as salaries on the LMT team. Might as well get 37 planes for the same salary.

Another thing- Marine Corps fighter aviation is in terrible shape. They bet the farm on the F-35 replacing both the F/A-18A/B/C/D legacy Hornet, and the AV-8B. But the delay in introducing the F-35 meant those older aircraft have had to serve longer than anticipated. And that has driven maintenance costs up, and availability down. Something approaching 70% of the Marine Hornet fleet is unavailable. Now, having a quarter of the inventory out of service for deep maintenance is fairly normal. And having a fair percentage down for minor maintenance issues on any given day isn’t unusual. But right now, the availability of jets to the Marines is so poor that they can barely maintain minimum flight proficiency, let alone tactical and operational proficiency.

The situation on the Navy side of the house is bad as well, but not so catastrophic yet. If bumping production of Marine F-35Bs means a slight slowdown in F-35C production, I’m not sure the Navy would object too loudly.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

About the only solid thing that the A-10C does better than other platforms that I've read about is its epic loiter time without hitting the tanker.

Oh, unless you notice the bombers you mentioned... um...

The thing the A-10 has going for it, for real, is the troops love them and the bad guys are scared of them in a way that they aren't of other platforms. That doesn't make the bombs more accurate, the gun shoot faster, etc... nor does it make the A-10 less vulnerable to the improving anti-air that non-stone age potential opponents are capable of bringing to bear.

We've become kind of spoiled at having complete air supremacy without having to really fight and hold it.

Those bombers carving circles at multi-10k altitudes doing CAS can't do that when we don't own the sky either.

Throughout all the tireless debate about the F-35 I am reminded of what a lemon the M1 Abrams was. At least if you asked the media about them.

It took Desert Storm to FINALLY silence those criticisms. Something about none of its "flaws" coming out and hampering the mission or something...

M-1, yeah, when the competition has to stop to fire, all you have to do is sit.or zag.
And no armament stoping power? Where will they shoot? All the computer control just nicking a wire will do it. You don't have to just protect the piolet, you have to harden or stay out of the fray.
And I thought airpower started with the army, back against some Mexican outlaw, when the airplane driver shot at poncho. Oh well.

What are these new devices that allow CAS aircraft to generate situational awareness while zipping along at 400+ knots at low altitude over rough terrain? I am assuming by situational awareness you mean the ability to acquire and designate targets.

The only reason we don't have low and slow FAC aircraft anymore is because the CAS aircraft itself has now assumed that function. That is why the A-10 was specifically designed to go low and relatively slow in a high-threat environment.

There is more to CAS than being able to drop large quantities of PGM. A C-130 can do that. The trick is to drop them on the right target and, as that unfortunate incident in 2014 shows, the B-1 leaves something to be desired in that area.

Then there is the financial cost. Yes, money matters. Particularly in "limited" wars. Price is a measure of resources used. Resources are limited. How many A-10s (or a replacement) can we purchase and operate for the price of one B-1?

"What are these new devices that allow CAS aircraft to generate situational awareness while zipping along at 400+ knots at low altitude over rough terrain? I am assuming by situational awareness you mean the ability to acquire and designate targets."

That's a strike profile, not a CAS profile. CAS involves loitering at mid to high altitudes waiting for a call, zipping over to deliver the bomb, then resuming loitering until time to go home. Situational awareness is provided by the troops on the ground. They have multiple ways to determine the grid coordinates of whatever they need blown up.

"There is more to CAS than being able to drop large quantities of PGM. A C-130 can do that. The trick is to drop them on the right target and, as that unfortunate incident in 2014 shows, the B-1 leaves something to be desired in that area."

Not really. And it's not like the A-10 is without its fair share of fratricide incidents.

"Then there is the financial cost. Yes, money matters. Particularly in "limited" wars. Price is a measure of resources used. Resources are limited. How many A-10s (or a replacement) can we purchase and operate for the price of one B-1?"

How much are you willing to pay for a smoking crater on the battlefield? The simple fact is that Chinese and Russian MANPADS can already bring down an A-10. In the not too distant future those weapons will make their way into the hands of our actual enemies, at which point the A-10 will be utterly useless. Furthermore, how many A-10's can do strategic bombing? So you'll still need the B-1's, which can do the A-10's job. Since the reverse isn't true, the A-10's are the waste of resources, no matter how cheaply they're made.

What are the grid coordinates of a moving target? What are the grid coordinates of a target that is firing at you from behind a hill or otherwise not visible? Suppose your hand little gadget is a casualty (it sometimes happens in combat)? Suppose the gadgeteer is a bit nervous and makes a mistake (not unheard of)?

"zipping over to deliver the bomb"

How is that different from a "strike profile"?

What makes you think an A-10, which was designed with MANPADS in mind, is significantly more vulnerable than an F-35 in the CAS role?

The B-1 is no longer a strategic bomber, since it can only carry conventional weapons. There are only 62 of them, so we had better keep our wars small.

The only reason the B-1 is used for CAS is because their units are bored and want to earn air medals for "combat" missions like all the other AF types. So they use a 95 ton, $317 millon aircraft with a crew of 4 (two pilots) to deliver a 1 ton bomb one at a time.

So let's also remember 6 AV-8B Harriers were destroyed on the ground by the Taliban forward deployed in Afghanistan a few years back. So do you think F-35B's will ever be forward deployed at $100 million apiece? With readiness rates now acknowledged at below 50% fleet wide how many are available for CAS anyway?

How about we get a lot of specific built CAS aircraft in case we get into a real shooting war, because they are going to risk the F-35's. Let's be realistic. The USMC only has a finite amount of Cobras to throw at the mission as well, and they will probably bear the brunt of the mission.